Topics: PLA dangerous demonstration video; Expansion of AUKUS; Hezbollah device explosions; Australia should oppose UN motion;
07:50AM AEST
18 September 2024
Patricia Karvelas: Just two months after the Chinese premier’s visit to Australia, with hopes of China-Australia relations stabilising, China’s military has released dramatic video appearing to show its interception of an Australian surveillance plane above the South China Sea. An Australian P-8 Poseidon was reportedly intercepted by a Chinese J-16 fighter in international airspace in May 2022. Australia’s Defence Department says the video is yet to be verified. Simon Birmingham is the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and joins us this morning. Simon Birmingham, welcome.
Simon Birmingham: Good morning, PK. Good to be with you.
Patricia Karvelas: What do you make of this development?
Simon Birmingham: This video appears to be an unacceptable glorification of unacceptable military conduct. There really are two serious points of concern here. The first goes back to the military conduct itself. And there are far too many instances now in relation to Chinese military conduct towards Australia and many other regional partners, particularly and notably the Philippines in recent times, where that conduct has been unduly risky, aggressive and creates a circumstance of possible miscalculation or escalation that none of us would wish to see. The second issue being, of course, now this propaganda video, which appears to glorify and encourage this type of conduct, rather than seeking to ensure that military conduct is undertaken responsibly. And disturbingly within this video, it appears to describe Australia as an enemy and an opponent, and that is certainly not how we see ourselves in relation to the type of relationship we wish to have with China.
Patricia Karvelas: Do you think incidents like these will dent the diplomatic inroads made this year between Australia and China?
Simon Birmingham: Incidents like these necessitate the Albanese Government to show strength. There has been too much timidity on the part of the prime minister in particular, who infamously refused to raise issues in relation to Chinese military conduct with the Chinese president when he had the opportunity. And the Albanese Government-.
Patricia Karvelas: I must fact check you. It was subsequently absolutely raised.
Simon Birmingham: Subsequently by the government elsewhere.
Patricia Karvelas: But the government, I mean he runs the government.
Simon Birmingham: Not on the occasion when the Prime Minister had the opportunity to raise it directly with Xi Jinping.
Patricia Karvelas: He does run the government though.
Simon Birmingham: He has not raised it directly with Xi Jinping.
Patricia Karvelas: So, where’s the where’s the timidity? Because at the same time, the Coalition has in fact welcomed the thawing of the relationship. We’ve seen a different tone from Peter Dutton. You can’t have it both ways, can you?
Simon Birmingham: We do welcome the thawing of the relationship, and we do wish to have a stable relationship with China. We wish to see growth in trade and economic ties and cooperation in other fields where we can cooperate in terms of regional security issues like the trafficking of drugs or regional health issues. And those areas are really important, and we want to do so in an environment of peace and stability. That peace and stability is jeopardised by the way in which the People’s Liberation Army of China conducts itself, and this type of risky conduct does need to be called out. And yes, when the Prime Minister of Australia has the opportunity face to face with the President of China to raise these types of concerns, we should take it up. Not because we wish to damage relations, but because we wish to have a peaceful and stable region, and that we are willing to call out conduct that risks and undermines that.
Patricia Karvelas: Okay. So, what should the Prime Minister do now?
Simon Birmingham: We should be making strong representations to China about this video, which, as I said, in and of itself is concern for the language used in it, describing Australia as an enemy and for the glorification of this type of unacceptable military conduct. And we should be seeking to make those representations not just at officials’ level, but also at a ministerial level.
Patricia Karvelas: On another issue, it’s been reported this morning, Senator Birmingham, that the leaders of AUKUS will consider broadening AUKUS to include South Korea, New Zealand and Canada. Putting aside a new acronym, which would be very confusing for some of us. Does the agreement need to be broadened?
Simon Birmingham: Well, the previous Coalition government signed onto AUKUS in partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom, to give Australia access to the most advanced and sophisticated military technologies for our national self-defence. That was structured in the form of two pillars, pillar one being the nuclear-powered submarine technology, being shared for only the second time in its history by the United States with another country, advancing it to Australia in addition to the UK. And the second pillar being across a range of other advanced and sophisticated technologies, and where we can cooperate as a partnership with other like-minded countries who share our values and who can contribute to that building of the most sophisticated defence technology, then it makes sense to do so. We saw the advance in relation to discussions with Japan announced in April, and we welcome collaboration where it is possible with Canada, New Zealand and South Korea.
Patricia Karvelas: If you’re just tuning in, it’s Radio National Breakfast. It’s Wednesday, and our guest, Simon Birmingham, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, before we get to the UN General Assembly, given what’s happened in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah operatives overnight, which has killed at least nine people, there are reports of a child who’s been killed. It’s pretty big story coming out of the Middle East. Is this the moment? Are we on the brink of a major regional conflict?
Simon Birmingham: Patricia, there have been many potential moments where people talk about the risk of a wider regional conflict, of an escalation across the region. None of us wish to see that. Hezbollah has continued to act in ways that are in violation of UN resolutions and undertakings in terms of the basically demilitarised zone that is meant to exist in southern Lebanon. And instead, Hezbollah, a recognised terrorist organisation, continue to fire rockets into Israel and have driven tens of thousands of people from their homes for the better part of a year now. And so, their conduct has long and continues to be destabilising. Obviously, this very targeted and sophisticated action that has been undertaken appears to have targeted specifically those Hezbollah operatives. And as I said, they are a recognised terrorist organisation in our country and in many others.
Patricia Karvelas: The United Nations General Assembly is scheduled to vote on a Palestinian motion demanding Israel comply with an International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful. Do you still oppose this motion?
Simon Birmingham: We do. This is a very expansive motion. It runs for many, many pages and in that motion there is a failure to mention Hamas at all, to call for the release of hostages at all. These are obvious failings. The way in which the resolution calls for the cessation of agreements with Israel and the undertaking of sanctions against Israel, is horrifically one-sided when you think about the failure to have any mention of Hamas. And also, would be very counterproductive to long-term efforts to secure peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. So, we do think Australia should stand with like-minded countries such as the United States, and I suspect many others who will ultimately vote against this resolution, because it is contrary to long-standing policy and contrary to the interests of securing a genuine, lasting and sustainable peace.
Patricia Karvelas: But how does this resolution challenge Israel’s right to exist? It’s simply demanding Israel end its occupation of those Palestinian territories.
Simon Birmingham: Well, I invite you to read the full resolution, because it does a lot more than just that. As I said, it is a very long and expansive resolution, and it is a resolution that is both problematic for its omissions in failing to deal at all with the existence of Hamas or the terrorist threat that it poses to Israel, as well as for its inclusions-
Patricia Karvelas: Okay, let me just interrupt one more time politely. It’s simply recognising international law. Doesn’t that reflect an ICJ ruling?
Simon Birmingham: Patricia, it is not simply doing that. It does much, much more than that as a resolution in terms of the actions that it calls for. And in those actions, it would be very counterproductive to efforts to try to achieve a long-term peace, which ultimately, we all wish to see the bloodshed to end. This is not a resolution focused on a ceasefire. It’s not a resolution that builds upon efforts to achieve a negotiated, lasting settlement between the two parties. This is a resolution that is deeply one sided and a resolution that fails to address really the big problems faced at present, being the huge terrorist threats that are coming from multiple directions that have provoked this war and this conflict that has now gone on so tragically through the last year.
Patricia Karvelas: Simon Birmingham, thank you.
[ENDS]